People v. Nelson, 89 N.E.3d 725

In Feb 2009 Morris Wilson was beaten and fatally stabbed outside an apartment in Chicago; four women (Nelson, Hall, Cox, Ball) were charged with murder and armed robbery.
Nelson and Hall were represented by attorneys from the same law clinic; trials were severed but conducted simultaneously as bench trials; all four were convicted.
At Nelson’s trial the State presented eyewitnesses, physical evidence (blood, broken glass, knife), and stipulations linking DNA and items to the defendants; Nelson gave a videotaped statement admitting participation but saying Hall stabbed Wilson and Nelson tried to stop her.
Defense argued self-defense/defense of others; State argued the encounter resumed after Wilson left and the women pursued and assaulted him, making each accountable under the common-design/accountability doctrine.
On appeal Nelson argued her Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel was violated because counsel (from same firm as Hall’s counsel) pursued a joint self-defense theory instead of an innocence/lack-of-accountability defense that would have conflicted with Hall’s defense.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed convictions, overruled People v. Echols to conform to Cuyler v. Sullivan, and held no actual conflict existed because Nelson’s proposed alternative defense was not a viable legal option under the common-design rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Nelson)	Held
Whether Echols rule (that availability of a strategy helping one codefendant at expense of another does not create hostility) remains valid	Echols justified rejecting conflict claim; joint defense permitted so long as viable joint theory existed	Echols conflicts with Cuyler v. Sullivan; counsel abandoned a plausible innocence/lack-of-accountability defense to protect Hall, creating an actual conflict	Echols overruled; courts must apply Sullivan/Cuyler conflict analysis
Whether Nelson proved an actual conflict under Cuyler (that a plausible defense was abandoned because of other loyalties)	Counsel pursued joint self-defense reasonably; no showing counsel’s performance was adversely affected	Counsel could have pursued lack-of-accountability/innocence based on Nelson’s statement; joint defense required abandoning that plausible strategy	No actual conflict: Nelson’s proposed lack-of-accountability defense was not legally viable given her admissions and Illinois common-design/accountability doctrine, so she failed to show an alternative defense with sufficient substance

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1978) (establishes requirement to show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel when conflict raised post-trial)
Taylor v. Grounds, 721 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2013) (criticized Echols and required assessment of discarded defense’s plausibility and conflict with codefendant’s interests)
People v. Echols, 74 Ill. 2d 319 (1978) (former Illinois rule that mere availability of a strategy favoring one codefendant does not create hostility; overruled)
United States v. Fahey, 769 F.2d 829 (1st Cir. 1985) (two-part test: plausible alternative defense; alternative was abandoned due to other loyalties)
People v. Mahaffey, 165 Ill. 2d 445 (1995) (representation by partners/associates treated same as single-attorney joint representation for conflict analysis)
People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138 (1995) (joint representation not per se a Sixth Amendment violation)
People v. Terry, 99 Ill. 2d 508 (1984) (explains common-design/accountability rule under Illinois law)